SENIOR GEOLOGIST Vs. THANKACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ appeal is filed by the respondent in W.P.(C) No. 18726 of 2020 challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2020, by which, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition, directing the appellant ? Senior Geologist, Kozhikode, to validate Exhibit-P1 permit dated 14.03.2018, for a term equal to the term during which, the petitioner could not operate quarrying, on the strength of the permit, without insisting any further payment. It was also ordered that this shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that 1 st respondent/ writ petitioner is the owner of a granite quarry, conducted in 4.6963 hectares of land owned by him, on the basis of Exhibit-P1 quarrying permit dated 14.03.2018, for extraction of granite building stones. At the time of issuance of Exhibit-P1, he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,51,120/- as royalty and an amount of Rs.35,112/- being quarry safety fund. Accordingly, the respondent paid Rs.3,51,296/- and Rs.35,112/-, as evident from Exhibits-P2 and P3 challan receipts. The quarrying permit was issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, on the basis of environmental clearance. Immediately after the issuance of Exhibit-P1 permit, Exhibit-P4 stop memo dated 16.03.2018 was issued to the respondent, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8644 of 2018, stating that the quarrying is against the provisions contained in the Environmental Clearance. Hence, he had to stop the quarrying activities.

(3.) Finally, W.P.(C) No. 8644 of 2018 was disposed of by judgment dated 29.01.2019 (Exhibit-P5), directing the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to consider the objections raised and to take a final decision in the matter. After hearing, SEIAA found that the objections have no basis and the respondent was issued with Exhibit-P6 environmental clearance on 04. 11.2019, which will expire on 04.12.2024. Pursuant to Exhibit- P6, respondent submitted Exhibit-P7 request to the appellant for extension of the period of quarrying permit, during which, the stop memo was issued. Due to the interdiction in carrying out the business, by issuance of the stop memo, the respondent could not undertake quarrying operations, and therefore, he again approached this Court.